I test drove an Infiniti EX35. WOW, what a car/truck/wagon or whatever it is. I went for a test drive on Thursday and could not believe how nice the interior is. The engine and transmission are incredible. It rides so much smoother and quieter than the RDX and is so much faster and gets better gas mileage w/ 50+ more horses and a v6. If you need rear seat and cargo space, the RDX wins hands down but if you want luxury the RDX is no match for the EX. I still think the RDX is a great vehicle and for the money, it's hard to beat but for my preferences I liked the Infiniti better. To make a long story short, I pick up my loaded EX on Thursday.

 

nice

 

thats good to know. i always wanted an opinion from someone who test drove both. i have no doubts that the Infiniti doesnt lack in luxury. btw would you mind sharing with us how much you paid OTD?

 

Looks like a "loaded" EX35 costs around $46k...is that what you paid?

 

Better gas mileage?

RDX gets 17/22 and EX AWD gets 16/23.

Seems like a wash to me.

 

i heard the ex has self healing paint ... sounds pretty cool

 

for the price of a loaded MDX and the size almost smaller than a G35.....
the ex just doesnt make any sense, especially when they have the FX in the lineup....but this topic has been hashed and re-hashed a thousand times on this board.

anyways, in all seriousness enjoy it.....i dont think i have seen one yet in my travels through MA, NY/CT, and RI

 

I think the EX is a solid choice, but it's not a practical choice.

I'm a dude with no kids, so the EX would do alright, but the hatch is tiny and the back seats are tiny, so if you only need "trunk" like room and don't care about back seat room, yet want AWD and slightly more practicality than a G35x, then the EX is a great choice.

 

That's a pretty bold statement no?

 

I test drove one as well, and still bought the RDX. The tech was nice with the all around camera, but the space was too much of a concern. It felt smaller than an A3.

 

if its all out lux u want and dont care much for the other benefits of this type of ride, the ex is def a cool car...but overpriced...for the loaded awd sticker,, im CERTAINLY not buying a g35 hatchback, lol.

 

People really should qualify other cars with the market price, because anyone can make a statement such as "I drove a Porsche Cayenne Turbo and it's so much better." Of course it's better. It costs 3x the RDX.

I know the EX is significantly more expensive than the RDX, so it's a given that it should be better. Real news would be something along the lines of: Car X is cheaper or same price as RDX and better. Now that would get my attention.

 

Well said!

 

Thanks for the feedback.

The Turbo is what sold me on the RDX

 

The Nissan VQ35 is a very nice motor.

 

I'm started to like the looks of the EX35, but not the PRICE! Back seats are small, but I'm in my vehicles 99% of the time by myself. Haven't test driven one yet, but I'm in no hurry. As Pang said, I like the RDX turbo 2!

 

My brother picked up a G35X last night. He said it has a bigger back seat than the EX and is cheaper. They have an Odyssey for major hauling and all four kids.

The EX is targeting a REALLY small market.

 

Back seat room is also a concern for me. But the styling is not bad. We saw one at Costco the other day and my wife asked how come I didn't get that since I had an FX35. I told her to go look at the price.

 

Agreed. In fact, I don't know what market they're targeting at all. It doesn't really seem to have any advantages over the G35 sedan, costs a lot more, and in some ways is less practical. Then you look at all the competition, which often surpasses the FX in several criteria for a lot less money, and the equation just doesn't close.

 

Having both a VQ powered vehicle and the RDX, no contest I'd prefer the VQ. Much livelier engine/transmission combo. The RDX wins on price/practicality. Outside of that, the Infiniti is the better performer and has more options.

 

so odd that the acura suvs vs infiniti suvs don't match up really:

fx vs rdx or mdx? fx is to big for the rdx, but smaller than the mdx.
ex vs rdx? ex is smaller than the rdx
qx56 vs ??? qx56 has no acura competitor. the mdx is smaller.

 

Sticker was $45675. It went for around $41000 out the door. I got $2500 off sticker(there was $2000 dealer cash or something) and got about $5000 for my trade which more than BMW and Acura gave me. I got the AWD journey w/ nav, premium pack, tech package and lux package. Also a couple of small options like roof racks and mud flaps, and wood grain interior. I only wanted the tech package for the intelligent cruise control and lane drift prevention system. The around view cameras are really cool but I never need to parallel park but it would be a neat feature to show off to passengers.

 

I agree but Infiniti has said they were targeting the RDX and X3 buyers with the EX.

 

I test drove both and the infiniti seemed much faster to me and the power was instant. The rdx was fast but the turbo makes it feel sluggish at times. As far as fuel economy goes the, I have talked to a few G35 AWD owners at work and the all said they easily get in the upper 20's highway mileage. the EX is a little heavier so the numbers should be the same or a little less than the G35. on this forum most RDX owners say they barely get 20 mpg highway.

 

My last car was an Audi TT coupe so an EX will be like a full size SUV to me. For me the EX is more than practical. It is just my wife and I right now and God willing maybe add a baby seat this winter. If I do feel like I need more room, I can always upsize to the FX in a couple years.

 

The turbo, in all reality, is the REAL problem with the RDX.

The RDX engineers had a good idea, a REALLY good, even excellent idea.

But they blew it, seriously so.

Having a smallish I4 for low torque conditions, say just cruising along at a relatively constant speed, and then having a Turbo to kick in when extra torque is needed, a LOT of extra TORQUE. A lot like having two engines, a low HP/Torque engine for optimum FE, and then a HIGH HP/torque engine for GO power.

But too many compromises were made.

If you're going to use the COMPRESSION capability of a turbo then the base engine's compression must be lowered, basically the RDX's engine is DERATED.
Absent the turbo being online, producing boost, the engine is NOT producing the level of HP/torque cognizant with it's displacement, pumping losses, and friction loss component.

Therein is the KEY reason the turbo MUST spin up quickly and begin producing BOOST. That is also the reason the typical RDX driver cannot get decent FE by attempting to avoid bringing the turbo on line. Using the engine in derated mode to produce even a slight level in increased HP/torque would result in FE dropping to abysmal levels.

If, when, even a small level extra HP/torque for acceleration or engine loading (uphill, towing, ect) is required the turbo must be brought on line IMMEDIATELY in order to move the low compression engine into the higher compression BOOSTED mode and thereby higher efficiency.

To get decent FE in an RDX you must either use cruise control constantly or learn to lovingly "caress" the gas pedal.

For instance think of the advantage a SuperCharger would provided. The effective engine compression ratio would NEVER fall as low as is the RDX engine.

Even better would have been an Atkinson Cycle engine implementation using a variable closing delay of the intake valves. The engine, off boost, could have a "native" compression ratio as high as 16:1, and with the proper degree of late intake valve closing an effective compression ratio of 10:1, or with DFI, even as high as 12:1 .

Nothing new in the above, all capabilities required are already in use today.

 

But RDX drivers have a really difficult job staying out of BOOST mode whereas the EX35 has no need.

My guess would be that real world numbers would show the EX to be well ahead, better than the RDX for FE, even excluding the "boy-racers" who buy the RDX only for the "turbo".

 

my girlfriend looked at the rdx at the auto show and at an acura dealer. she liked it until i showed her the outlander, 09 murano, and then ex35. she likes these more than the rdx. only thing that bugged her about the ex35 was to her it looks more like a wagon than a smaller suv since the ground clearance isn't as high as the rdx.

 

Why is the Turbo a selling feature? I'd rather have the same power from a naturally-aspirated 6-cylinder, like the one currently being offered in the Accord, even if it weights a little big more than the 4-banger Turbo setup. Oh wait, folks driving around in their $26K Accords actually have MORE power under their hood than we in our $37K RDX. Ouch!

- DDB

 

 

*** Sorry, overspoke, unlike "otto" engines the Atkinson cycle engine doesn't leave enough energy/HEAT in the exhaust to spool up a turbo as more, most of it gets used to drive the output shaft.

 

They missed.

 

The turbo four allowed Honda to use the CR-V platform--which is why the RDX costs about 20% less than it's supposed competition. It is based on a large volume platform.

$6-8,000 buys a lot of gas. The RDX motor is plenty powerful and gets roughly the same fuel economy as the EX and the X3. Financially, you are much, much, much better off with the RDX--you would have to drive for decades to make up the price difference with a small mpg difference.

Perspective: 100,000 miles, at $5/gallon means about $5,000 difference going from 18 mpg to 22 mpg. And a lot of that is future money, where the price of the vehicle is present money.

If the EX had three or four more inches of backseat room and cost what a G35 does, the RDX would be in trouble. But it doesn't.

Besides, Nissans have Renault cooties.

(Sorry about two posts in a row--missed the edit cutoff)

 

So you're saying that if they had used the Honda V6, a different platform would have been required and the final product would have cost $6-8K more than the current RDX pricing? Do you have any evidence supporting this cost difference claim?

- DDB

 

im sure a seperate and or different platform that would had to have been created and developed for the smaller RDX would make it more expensive than it currently is.

but not only that....the RDX's turbo almost matches the accords rated v6 power...thats pretty damn good pumping out of a small 4. like everyone has claimed thru testing, its actual power is higher than what is stated, which would put it on par with the V6.

and its not 37k...people buying the RDX get the powerplant right from the base model which is huge and 31k for that sweet vari-flow turbo is a good package. also being a turbo...there is a lot more room for tuning and improvements.

 

AMEN

 

Should you really have to ask this question? It all comes down to feel, and it is purely subjective. The same reason some people prefer light steering vs. tighter setups, different suspension settings.

And why do people CONTINUE to ask why the RDX has a turbo 4? It is so obvious that it is used to keep it away from nipping at the MDX's heels, which it does just fine. I will never understand why people question this - especially those that own the vehicle.

 

"Because the RDX is built on the small Honda CR-V platform, there wasn't room under its hood for the V6."

(Source)

Granted that doesn't quantify the cost difference, but it addresses the platform choice.

 

I'm quite sure a V6 could be fitted in the RDX as well, but I'm assuming Acura had certain things in mind when developing the K23 for just one vehicle (explanding it into other vehicles for example).

 

what are the typical rpms you are at to get the turbo to kick in?